The Damage Thread - Best Buy Demo, Now Thats More Like It!

[Tenacious D]

I know about that, but it's the "nothing but that" which bugs me.

Also, the license argument is no longer valid as most manufacturers have been featured in other games with damage.

You don't understand the implications of what you're saying.

The only remotely GT-like game in existence is Forza, because they basically stole the entire concept. Yes, all the cars in Forza suffer some kind of damage, However, I did some crash testing a few weeks ago just to confirm it for a post, and different makes, and even different models such as some tuners, mysteriously, suffer different levels of damage, Ferrari evidently the least of all.

As Scaff, who worked (still works?) in the industry and a few others pointed out, you can't get 30 carmakers to agree to have their cars treated the same way without paying exorbitant license fees, and some won't budge no matter what. Now, Kazunori can go the Forza route and have some cars mysteriously become tanks that seemingly keep going no matter what happens to them, or he can drop many cars we've been begging for. Are you willing to let go of Ferrari and others so you can demolish your Civic?

I have a feeling that's going to be a hard sell.

In fact, maybe I should bump my thread concerning this...

 

[Lucas]

The only remotely GT-like game in existence is Forza, because they basically stole the entire concept.

As long as it's a different game, I don't see what does that have to do with this.

My opinion: So it all comes down to the fact that damage in GT was a pointless thing from the beginning if it was to be implemented poorly, and thus, sucks. Sucks that PD spend time modelling damage when it won't even be balanced (according to what you presume) and not every car in the game will have it.

 

[Maggot666PL]

The only remotely GT-like game in existence is Forza, because they basically stole the entire concept.

I very often agree with you, but let me get this straight: it's true that T10 pretty much copied the idea, but that doesn't mean stealing in any way. Ideas can't be stolen (and I'm sure KY wasn't the first human on earth that got this idea, he's "just" first who pulled it off).

About the damage - we discussed the carmakers issue like fifty times. And that's just the past week.
You can always create fantasy brands if you want just the damage. Which is not a path that I prefer, not for a "real driving simulator".

 

[Lucas]

Ideas can't be stolen

Ideas are... bulletproof.

 

[Simple SIM]

I know about that, but it's the "nothing but that" which bugs me.


You don't understand the implications of what you're saying.

The only remotely GT-like game in existence is Forza, because they basically stole the entire concept. Yes, all the cars in Forza suffer some kind of damage, However, I did some crash testing a few weeks ago just to confirm it for a post, and different makes, and even different models such as some tuners, mysteriously, suffer different levels of damage, Ferrari evidently the least of all.

As Scaff, who worked (still works?) in the industry and a few others pointed out, you can't get 30 carmakers to agree to have their cars treated the same way without paying exorbitant license fees, and some won't budge no matter what. Now, Kazunori can go the Forza route and have some cars mysteriously become tanks that seemingly keep going no matter what happens to them, or he can drop many cars we've been begging for. Are you willing to let go of Ferrari and others so you can demolish your Civic?

I have a feeling that's going to be a hard sell.

In fact, maybe I should bump my thread concerning this...

Name one car in Forza that "mysteriously becomes a tank and keeps going no matter what you do to it" because I haven't seen it.

 

[Tenacious D]

About the damage - we discussed the carmakers issue like fifty times. And that's just the past week. You can always create fantasy brands if you want just the damage. Which is not a path that I prefer, not for a "real driving simulator".

In a Gran Turismo game? I'd like to see how many people go along with this notion. I dunno, maybe in a roundabout way, you're agreeing with me that no damage isn't the end of the world, but I'm a bit confused with that line of thought concerning GT.

And by the way, if you've never heard of intellectual property rights, copyright infringement and plagarism, yes, ideas can be stolen.

Name one car in Forza that "mysteriously becomes a tank and keeps going no matter what you do to it" because I haven't seen it.

Every Ferrari, for a slew of examples. Can you finally almost kill it? Yes, but it takes a while.

I invite you to browse my "How much damage should be in GT5?" thread, or just the first and last posts. It covers the subject very well, I'd say.

 

[Simple SIM]

Every Ferrari, for a slew of examples. Can you finally almost kill it? Yes, but it takes a while.

I invite you to browse my "How much damage should be in GT5?" thread, or just the first and last posts. It covers the subject very well, I'd say.

You are mistaken. The reason why it is hard to damage the engines of most Ferrari's is because their engines are located in the back of the car.

Obviously if a cars engine is located in the front and you run it into a wall the damage to the engine will be far more severe than if you do the same with a car that's got their engine in the back.

That's just most of the Ferraris though. Go crash a 250 GTO or Scaglietti into the wall and the engine will be toast.

There is no special treatment for Ferrari. The same goes for ANY car that has it's engine located in the back.

 

[Maggot666PL]

In a Gran Turismo game? I'd like to see how many people go along with this notion. I dunno, maybe in a roundabout way, you're agreeing with me that no damage isn't the end of the world, but I'm a bit confused with that line of thought concerning GT.

Yeah, I agree with you about the no damage issue. That's why I wrote about "needing just the damage". And it's not what GT fans want, it's more of a Flatout's fanbase priority.

And by the way, if you've never heard of intellectual property rights, copyright infringement and plagarism, yes, ideas can be stolen.

Yeah, I heard of them. And mostly they're a complete hunk of steamy excrements, that's why I said that ideas can't be stolen. Current patent issues are just horrendous and aren't serving anyone but the patent lawyers. But let's not go there in this specific thread .

You are mistaken. The reason why it is hard to damage the engines of most Ferrari's is because their engines are located in the back of the car.

Obviously if a cars engine is located in the front and you run it into a wall the damage to the engine will be far more severe than if you do the same with a car that's got their engine in the back.

Mmm, no. When I last checked, pretty much the only modeled damage in FM2 was falling off body panels, scratches and bends, right? The front frame, engine bay always stay intact. So why is it that the shock in the front half of the car is greater than in the rear? There is no (or next to none) crumpling, so there is no issue of parts getting stuck here and there (not to mention that stopping pretty much any rotating part of the engine would effectively kill it, at best disabling half of it's cylinders or so). That means that we,re talking about damage sustained due to g-forces, shock, tumbles, etc. Tell me why exactly the front suffers more? Because the only explanation I can imagine is that "it's always been like that in games".

 

[Tenacious D]

You are mistaken. The reason why it is hard to damage the engines of most Ferrari's is because their engines are located in the back of the car.

So what's the excuse for the front engined Veilside Supra? Yet another tank, and not a street car either.

By the way, the body crumpling is different for different cars. Once again, regardless of any arbitrary numbers and colors you might see in a pop up display, level of damage depends on both how willing the car maker and how willing MS is to spend for it.

 

[newnikita]

...You can always create fantasy brands if you want just the damage. Which is not a path that I prefer, not for a "real driving simulator"...

Even so, I would find interesting some fantasy cars with no licensing damage restrictions, for example: one RWD, other AWD and the last FWD. Like on GTA, suspiciously similar to real ones : a Dodgi Fiper, Nissen GT+R, Oupel Astria

I don't think Polyphony will do it, what that would be great. It would means: "eih, we can do it, is only a brand problem".

 

[Lucas]

And by the way, if you've never heard of intellectual property rights, copyright infringement and plagarism, yes, ideas can be stolen.

Last time I checked, if someone stole my PS2, that means I don't have it... Therefore, no, ideas can't be stolen.

Yazunori was the one that pulled it off first, as Maggot666PL said. Who knows if there was a kid somewhere that had already thought of a game like Gran Turismo? He has to wait until he is old enough and has the resources to make his own game. Oh, no! Gran Turismo has already been released... But he still wants to release his game. And so, he is called a thief by the former game's fans.

This is not Forza I'm talking about, in case someone starts with the f-boy thing going on.

Turn 10 or whoever is in charge didn't sell Gran Turismo with a different name. They didn't also "use or close imitated the language and thoughts of another author and the representation of them as one's own original work." I recall a member saying Group C cars of Le Mans didn't look like each other. With that argument, then neither Gran Turismo and Forza look alike.

Conversation over, let's move on with the topic. PD has to do something or else this damage we will be getting would have been a waste of time from it, given the fact I can already see many players dissapointed at it.

 

[Simple SIM]

Mmm, no. When I last checked, pretty much the only modeled damage in FM2 was falling off body panels, scratches and bends, right? The front frame, engine bay always stay intact. So why is it that the shock in the front half of the car is greater than in the rear? There is no (or next to none) crumpling, so there is no issue of parts getting stuck here and there (not to mention that stopping pretty much any rotating part of the engine would effectively kill it, at best disabling half of it's cylinders or so). That means that we,re talking about damage sustained due to g-forces, shock, tumbles, etc. Tell me why exactly the front suffers more? Because the only explanation I can imagine is that "it's always been like that in games".

Say what?

Take two cars. One with it's engine in the front, the other with it's engine in the back. Crash both of those cars head first into a wall.

It doesn't take a genius to figure out which car's engine is going to be more damaged.

So what's the excuse for the front engined Veilside Supra? Yet another tank, and not a street car either.

By the way, the body crumpling is different for different cars. Once again, regardless of any arbitrary numbers and colors you might see in a pop up display, level of damage depends on both how willing the car maker and how willing MS is to spend for it.

No, I've pointed out how and why you were mistaken.

The level of Damage in Forza is uniform. You have no actual justification for believing that Ferrari is receiving special treatment.

You used them as your example, but I already told you. Take the 260 GTO or Scagliette and crash those head on into a wall. Their engines will be toast with the first impact.

This is because they are the only two Ferraris in the game with their engines located in the front.

What you are doing is trying to build a house of cards.

You are trying to make excuses for GT not having damage modeling on all cars. You are doing so not with facts, but with a series of personal theories and false interpretations that you are stringing together.

 

[aspect8]

Every Ferrari, for a slew of examples. Can you finally almost kill it? Yes, but it takes a while.

Tenacious, I explained the Forza Ferrari damage here. You still keep bringing it up in discussions about damage, even after it's been proved false. This thread is for discussing GT5's damage, not peddling lies about Forza.

In racing games I like to see location-specific mechanical damage with corresponding effects on performance and adequate visual representation of that damage. Forza and several other games have reached that point. The damage shown for GT5 looks like the visuals are there... hopefully the mechanical damage will be there too.

This is important because it introduces a risk/reward system for really pushing hard, especially on Tokyo style street tracks. Knowing that running a tiny bit wide and rubbing the wall could bend your suspension and substantially reduce your performance for the rest of the race might make people drive more within their limits. Once GT5 gets an online system that allows you to reliably race with your friends hopefully we'll all get to appreciate the extra tension and excitement of a close race with real risk.

 

[Maggot666PL]

Say what?

Take two cars. One with it's engine in the front, the other with it's engine in the back. Crash both of those cars head first into a wall.

It doesn't take a genius to figure out which car's engine is going to be more damaged.

No, more like: take two tanks, one with the engine in the back (say, M1A1 Abrams), and one with the engine in the front (say, Merkava Mk3). The both manage to go through obstacles and smash walls without much effort, none of them is suffering any engine damage.

You see, the unrealistic damage "engine takes" from hits is weird - the engine is a very complicated piece of machinery, most importantly build to work in harmony. Most of the time when something gets damaged - it's dead as a whole. So I don't get the whole "it got more damaged" thing. In reality it is a bit easier to kill it in a certain way while it's at the front, but it's more likely that you'll start losing power due to transmission/clutch damage.

The point is - hitting the walls should rather result in suspension/steering problems + engine termination, not just damage (well, maybe if the game simulates overheating and therefore you have to rev it lower). Drivetrain is equally fragile, no matter where positioned (and I would even go further and say, that it's even worse in FR cars, where you have long, fast rotating shaft going under your car. It's more compact/gone in MR, gone in FF or RR layout.).

 

[aspect8]

Agree with some of this maggot, but what choice do the game developers have? It may be possible in the future to model individual engine components, but the amount of work involved per car is phenomenal. In the mean time, we treat the engine as a single entity. A minor shunt may damage cooling, or kink and constrict some piping, giving you a loss of engine power. A harder hit will stop it working entirely. That's basically what you get in most games, just abstracted to a higher level of "minor hit, 10%, major hit 50%" or whatever. At the end of the day even minor engine damage and a 10% power loss will probably end your chances in a close race.

Also, there are gameplay considerations. We are still talking about a game. Other games let you creep into the pits no matter how damaged you are. Is this realistic? No. Is it more fun to crawl into the pits, magically get your engine replaced and do some more laps? Totally. You aren't going to challenge the leaders or affect the race, but at least you're not staring at the wall for the next 20 laps.

 

[Simple SIM]

no, more like: Take two tanks, one with the engine in the back (say, m1a1 abrams), and one with the engine in the front (say, merkava mk3). The both manage to go through obstacles and smash walls without much effort, none of them is suffering any engine damage.

You see, the unrealistic damage "engine takes" from hits is weird - the engine is a very complicated piece of machinery, most importantly build to work in harmony. Most of the time when something gets damaged - it's dead as a whole. So i don't get the whole "it got more damaged" thing. In reality it is a bit easier to kill it in a certain way while it's at the front, but it's more likely that you'll start losing power due to transmission/clutch damage.

The point is - hitting the walls should rather result in suspension/steering problems + engine termination, not just damage (well, maybe if the game simulates overheating and therefore you have to rev it lower). Drivetrain is equally fragile, no matter where positioned (and i would even go further and say, that it's even worse in fr cars, where you have long, fast rotating shaft going under your car. It's more compact/gone in mr, gone in ff or rr layout.).

Hitting walls DOES result in suspension/steering problems + engine termination. But depending on where the engine is located depends on how much damage it receives. Which is of course realistic.

There is no complete termination of an engine. Only 99% termination.

Although I have to say I'm not entirely sure what your point is.

 

[Devedander]

Maggot I think you got in the middle of that ordeal, there are two ideas being thrown around:

You seem to be saying that the damage in Forza is unreaslitic because it doesn't go far enough.

Tenacious D is saying that damage in Forza is different for different cars.

What Sim and Aspect are saying isn't that the damage in Forza necessarily goes far enough, they are just saying it is applied the same for all similar cars.

 

[Maggot666PL]

Yeah, I know, it all got sideways again. I think I'll just wait for some new info about GT5 to have some point of comparison, since right know it's more about Forza and I'm not too familiar with it, so I can't go into any kind of deep analysis and I already said what I wanted (it was more of a criticism of the current most popular damage concept than FM2 itself).

 

[Tenacious D]

No, I've pointed out how and why you were mistaken.

The level of Damage in Forza is uniform. You have no actual justification for believing that Ferrari is receiving special treatment.

You used them as your example

Yes, as have others. There are posts by mods and others who have confirmed it previously on here. In fact, I then threw in a front engined car to indicate it's not because Ferrari locating the engine in the rear is the issue. The issue is that Ferrari is notoriously difficult to deal with, and evidently MS didn't want to or couldn't spend enough to buy equality with everyone else.

Why some of the tuners are hard to kill, I don't know. Maybe it could be as simple as making some non-ferraris tanks too, so they wouldn't dominate the online races. Other cars, probably they were as stubborn as Ferrari.

But your opinion on the matter is simply that.

 

[Simple SIM]

Yes, as have others. There are posts by mods and others who have confirmed it previously on here. In fact, I then threw in a front engined car to indicate it's not because Ferrari locating the engine in the rear is the issue. The issue is that Ferrari is notoriously difficult to deal with, and evidently MS didn't want to or couldn't spend enough to buy equality with everyone else.

Why some of the tuners are hard to kill, I don't know. Maybe it could be as simple as making some non-ferraris tanks too, so they wouldn't dominate the online races. Other cars, probably they were as stubborn as Ferrari.

But your opinion on the matter is simply that.

You've already been proven wrong.

As has already been mentioned by others. This is a thread about GT 5's damage. Not a thread for you to come and pedal lies about Forza.

I own Forza 1 and Forza 2. Ferrari's are NOT any harder to damage than other cars.

I'm not just gonna sit here while you pedal your lies about Forza nor would I sit here if you were making up lies about Gran Turismo.

You are just trying to make up excuses about why Damage isn't implemented properly in GT 5.

So stick to talking about GT 5 in a GT 5 thread rather than slinging FUD.

 

[Sureboss]

Based on that tiny preview in Germany? I doubt PD would put all their cards on the table, nor do I think that is what the damage in GT5 will end up like.

 

[Simple SIM]

Tenacious D

I'm not even sure why you would bring up Ferrari. There are MANY other games that have been able to obtain permission to damage them. Infact it seems like Polyphony is the ONLY developer that has any problem with getting it.

Maybe if you were to have been able to site some obscure manufacturer found in GT games and not in others. Maybe then you could build a case that some manufacturers won't allow damage.

It has been said many times before ( in the past before GT games had any damage ) that the reason there was no damage was because they couldn't get all the manufacturers to agree.

But now that argument doesn't seem to hold any water. Polyphony seems perfectly willing to fracture their game by allowing some cars to be damaged but not others.

Right now the number of damageable cars in GT 5 is in the neighborhood of 170. A tiny fraction of the overall number. Why not simply add to that number and put damage modeling on all the manufacturers that will allow it and don't put it on the manufacturers that will not.

If they did that I could easily imagine having damage modeling for 900+ cars with only a few manufacturers having any problem with seeing their cars damaged in a video game.

But now that I think about it I can't think of even think one single manufacturer that won't let their cars to be damaged in a game. Can you think of even one?

This would have to be a very obscure manufacturer found in GT and has never been damaged in other racing games.

 

[Maggot666PL]

I'm not even sure why you would bring up Ferrari. There are MANY other games that have been able to obtain permission to damage them. Infact it seems like Polyphony is the ONLY developer that has any problem with getting it.

Mmm, no. At least not that I can think of. I remember the old days - Stunts and first Test Drives had the ability do "destroy" your car after a crash, but that wasn't true damage modelling. Since then I can't think of any (or at least any MAJOR) game that freely damages Ferraris.

There is some next-to-nothing damage in Ferrari Challenge. GTR/2, but those are race cars, not road cars. And that's about it.
If you were about to bring TRD3 - no, there were no Ferraris. No damage in TDU. No in NFS 2/3. No Ferraris since street racing days.
Seems like an easy manufacturer to negotiate with, really.

And it's funny that first you argue the very fact of carmakers disallowing to damage their cars and then you smoothly start to acknowledge it. About the 170 cars issue - I don't deny the fact, that it's just a part of the game's available cars, but bear in mind, that if they were to be racecars - they'll be much more varied that, lets say, 20 damageable Skylines? I'm not sure of anything about that fact, but I restrain my comments, since we don't know nothing past those three digits and it's foolish to make too far going assumptions.

 

[Simple SIM]

Mmm, no. At least not that I can think of. I remember the old days - Stunts and first Test Drives had the ability do "destroy" your car after a crash, but that wasn't true damage modelling. Since then I can't think of any (or at least any MAJOR) game that freely damages Ferraris.

There is some next-to-nothing damage in Ferrari Challenge. GTR/2, but those are race cars, not road cars. And that's about it.
If you were about to bring TRD3 - no, there were no Ferraris. No damage in TDU. No in NFS 2/3. No Ferraris since street racing days.
Seems like an easy manufacturer to negotiate with, really.

And it's funny that first you argue the very fact of carmakers disallowing to damage their cars and then you smoothly start to acknowledge it. About the 170 cars issue - I don't deny the fact, that it's just a part of the game's available cars, but bear in mind, that if they were to be racecars - they'll be much more varied that, lets say, 20 damageable Skylines? I'm not sure of anything about that fact, but I restrain my comments, since we don't know nothing past those three digits and it's foolish to make too far going assumptions.

Ferrari virtual race for the PC has damage, PGR 3, Forza 1 and 2, there's like 6 Need For speed games with Ferrari's being damaged and the recently released SHIFT also has licensed Ferraris being damaged aswell.

So what is your point again? Clearly as I said there are Many games with licensed Ferraris being damaged.

How could anyone possibly argue that Ferrari won't allow their cars to be damaged in games?

 

[RAVELLRON]

however in the last interview, kazunory told that no cars brand stop him to reproduce damage... it was in a spanish interview..

 

[Dijital Majik]

SHIFT has no Ferraris

 

[Simple SIM]

SHIFT has no Ferraris

 

[Dijital Majik]

Nice photoshop.

That image is from SMS/Blimey's Ferrari Project.

Have a looksies at the official car-list:

http://forums.electronicarts.co.uk/need-speed-shift/656478-bmw-m3-gt2-races-onto-front-cover-car-track-list.html

Out of that list you gave:

- PGR3...yes

- Forza 1 and 2 don't count in this argument, as you were talking about games other than Forza.

- "like 6 NFS games" way to be specific

-SHIFT.... no

 

[Simple SIM]

Nice photoshop.

That image is from SMS/Blimey's Ferrari Project.

Have a looksies at the official car-list:

http://forums.electronicarts.co.uk/need-speed-shift/656478-bmw-m3-gt2-races-onto-front-cover-car-track-list.html

Out of that list you gave:

- PGR3...yes

- Forza 1 and 2 don't count in this argument, as you were talking about games other than Forza.

- "like 6 NFS games" way to be specific

-SHIFT.... no

Hmmm. You must be right. But I didn't make that pic. I just typed it into Google and I saw that pic.

And what is it that you are trying to argue?

Why is it that everyone in this this thread is obsessed with Ferrari and weather or not the can be damaged in games. Obviously Ferrari allows it.

You'd think one game would be enough to prove it. How many games do I have to list before you accept the obviousness of the truth?

 

[Simple SIM]

Even Ferrari themselves made a game that had their cars being damaged....